This study is based on the experiences of families in the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s Moving to Opportunity
program. The program was designed to isolate the impact of neighborhood
environment on a range of outcomes by randomly assigning volunteer public
housing residents in high-poverty neighborhoods either
to a control group or to one of two treatments groups who received vouchers to
move out of public housing. In addition to the vouchers, one of these groups
(the Experimental group) was given additional assistance and counseling
services, and was required to move to a low-poverty neighborhood.

This study compares the improvements in satisfaction and security for the
Experimental group with those of the Section 8 group. The authors examine
improvements experienced by the program participants in housing and
neighborhood quality, whether those improvements varied in magnitude between
the Experimental group and the Section 8 group, and what factors affect the
ability of participants to adjust to their new homes. Results show that both
groups experienced significant improvements in various measures of neighborhood
quality, such as housing quality and feelings of safety and security, but that
the Experimental group tended to fare better. They also were more likely to
satisfy their preferences for neighborhoods with more mixed racial composition,
which the authors suggest raises important questions about the impact of
housing market barriers on well-being, and about the role of counseling and
services as a complement to housing vouchers.

QUESTIONS

What improvements in housing
and neighborhood quality were achieved by program participants?

How do these improvements
vary in magnitude between experimental and comparison groups?

What factors facilitate or
inhibit the ability of program participants to adjust, in the short term,
to their new homes?

The US Department of Housing
and Urban Development baseline survey completed by all participants in the
MTO program prior to any move.

A telephone survey conducted
by mover families in Chicago
an average of 13 months after the families moved and 24.6 months after the
baseline survey. Difficulty securing phone numbers led to a low response
rate (51.3%). Of 285 households to lease up in Chicago, phone numbers were available
for 234, while 120 were contacted and surveyed. Of these, 67 were in the
MTO group, and 53 were in the Section 8 group. Two-tailed tests were
conducted to determine whether phone survey sample were statistically
different than the population of households in the program, using the
baseline data. The MTO families surveyed by phone were found to be
representative of the larger group of MTO families, but the Section 8
families in the phone survey had greater feelings of well-being along
several dimensions, as compared to all participating Section 8 families.
The authors note that this may have understated the difference in outcomes
between the Experimental group and the Section 8 group.

The single regression model
used as its dependent variable an index of three true-false statements
concerning respondents' feelings about their neighborhoods. There are five
independent variables: 1) a dummy variable for assignment group, 2) an
index of feelings of safety, created by the mean score of four safety
rating variables; 3) a sum of four possible social ties reported for the
new neighborhood; 4) the sum of five indicators of neighborhood problems;
and 5) a dummy indicating whether a family’s preferred neighborhood racial
composition was not met.

RESULTS

The MTO families were more
likely than Section 8-only families to satisfy their preferences for neighborhoods
with a mixture of racial/ethnic groups, while Section 8 families were more
likely to move to mostly black neighborhoods despite having stated
preference for mixed areas (68% of Section 8 versus 16% of Experimental).

Both Section 8 and
Experimental groups experienced dramatic improvements in their specific
housing conditions and a feeling of security, though the Experimental
group was more successful generally.

It is not clear which factors
contributed to the higher reported levels of housing quality from the
Experimental group relative to the Section 8-only group (e.g. the
requirement that they move to low-poverty neighborhoods or the counseling
or landlord lists they receive).

Though both Experimental and
Section 8-only families reported large declines in problems relating to
housing and neighborhood safety, Experimental group families were
significantly less likely than Section 8-only families to report problems
related to social disorder or physical deterioration in their new
neighborhoods. Experimental group families also experienced a higher level
of positive adjustment than Section 8 families, with the sole predictor in
the authors' regression model being an increased sense of personal safety
in the new neighborhood.

These differences in adjustment
are significantly weakened after controlling for the unmet preferences in
racial composition of the new neighborhood. The authors suggest that this
finding raises important policy issues about the impact on well-being of
housing market barriers. They go on to state that their results point to a
clear benefit of housing counseling and search assistance, when these are
coupled with housing vouchers.

This study is based on the experiences of families in the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development's Moving to Opportunity Program. The
program was designed to isolate the impact of neighborhood environment on a
range of outcomes by randomly assigning volunteer public housing residents in
high-poverty neighborhood. Program participants were assigned to either a
control group or to one of two treatment groups, both of which received
vouchers to move out of public housing. Aside from the vouchers, one of
these groups (the MTO Experimental group) was given additional assistance and
counseling services, and was required to move to a low-poverty neighborhood.

This paper focuses on two questions: How has moving affected
children? And does children's short-term experiences
vary depending on their program status? The authors do not compare the
treatment groups to the control group, but do examine the differences between
movers within each of the treatment groups, as indicated by objective and
subjective measures of neighborhood quality and children's performance in
school. They find that members of both treatment groups experienced
higher levels of social organization, which encompasses such things as safety,
disorder, and opportunities and risks to children. Yet members of the
experimental group fared, on average, significantly better. Both groups
reported a mixture of positive and negative school-related experiences after
moving, though the authors indicate concern about sample size for those
questions relating to school experiences. More generally, it should be
noted that the primary component of the data in this study was gleaned from a
phone survey that suffered from a small sample size and low response rate
(51%); the authors suggest that this may understate the differences in outcomes
between the two treatment groups.

QUESTIONS

How has
moving affected children?

Do children's short-term
experiences vary depending on their program status?

The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development baseline survey completed by all
participants in the MTO program prior to any move.

A telephone survey conducted
by mover families in Chicago
an average of 13 months after the families moved and 24.6 months after the
baseline survey. Difficulty securing phone numbers led to a low response
rate (51.3%). Of 285 households to lease up in Chicago, phone numbers were available
for 234. 120 program participants were contacted and surveyed. Of
these, 67 were in the MTO group, and 53 were in the Section 8 group.
Two-tailed tests were conducted to determine whether phone survey sample
were statistically different than the population of households in the
program, using the baseline data. The MTO families surveyed by phone were
found to be representative of the larger group of MTO families, but the
Section 8 families in the phone survey had greater feelings of well-being
along several measures, as compared to all participating Section 8
families. The authors note that this may have understated the difference
in outcomes between the Experimental group and the Section 8 group.

THEORY

While there is significant evidence of the link between neighborhood-level
characteristics and children’s outcomes, the precise mechanisms by which
neighborhoods affect children are less clear. The authors use as a point of
departure the social disorganization theory (Elliot et al. 1996, Sampson
1997). This theory posits social processes and relationships (e.g. role
models of acceptable behavior, collective socialization, informal social
control, and social disorder) as the bridge linking neighborhood structure with
children’s development. Mothers were asked questions about their new and old
neighborhoods, focusing on safety, disorder, opportunities and risks to their
children.

RESULTS

Mothers in both the
Experimental and Section 8-only groups appear to have been able to move to
neighborhoods with far higher levels of social organization than existed
in their origin neighborhoods, as evidenced both by mothers’ own
perceptions and census tract data. However, families in the experimental
group fared significantly better than Section 8-only families.

Families with children who
changed schools reported a mixture of positive and negative school-related
experiences. The authors report some concern about sample size when only
considering students who changed schools when they moved. However, their
findings are consistent with past studies (e.g. Gautreaux), which suggest
that children switching from urban to suburban schools outperformed their
urban counterparts in the long run, despite some initial difficulties.

In summary, short term
outcomes for children were improved for both the Section 8-only and
Experimental groups, but both census tract data and interviews with
mothers indicate that the children in the experimental group fared
significantly better.

This paper investigates short-term changes in neighborhood conditions for
families moving from Chicago public housing as
part of the Moving to Opportunity
demonstration program (MTO). MTO features a controlled experimental design, and
thus may be better suited than survey-based studies, in the long run, to
elucidate the effects of neighborhood conditions on family and children's
well-being. This paper presents evidence of the dramatic improvements in
community characteristics achieved by families moving from public housing to
private market apartments, and suggests some consideration for these community
characteristics as mediating factors that precede measurable long-term gains in
education and employment.

We focus on five key aspects of family well-being, including neighborhood
conditions, feelings of safety, experiences with
crime, opportunities and risks for teenagers, and access to services. Not
surprisingly, regardless of the neighborhood location of the families after
they move from public housing, all families experience significant improvements
on all measures. Further, those families that were required to move to
low-poverty neighborhoods experienced the greatest improvements. The only
important drawback to these low poverty moves appears to be the relative
isolation of the destination, particularly as far as access to public
transportation is concerned; however, more effective housing counseling
programs might help families choose neighborhoods with better access to
transportation and closer to other services like doctors or employers.

QUESTIONS

To what degree does
participation in MTO change families’ experiences of five measures of
well-being: neighborhood conditions, feelings of safety, experiences with
crime, opportunities and risks for teenagers, and access to services?

How do the families'
experiences differ depending on the program group assignment?

The US Department of Housing
and Urban Development baseline survey completed by all participants in the
MTO program prior to any move.

A telephone survey conducted
by mover families in Chicago
an average of 13 months after the families moved and 24.6 months after the
baseline survey. Difficulty securing phone numbers led to a low response
rate (51.3%). Of 285 households to lease up in Chicago, phone numbers were available
for 234. 120 program participants were contacted and surveyed. Of
these, 67 were in the MTO group, and 53 were in the Section 8 group.
Two-tailed tests were conducted to determine whether phone survey sample
were statistically different than the population of households in the
program, using the baseline data. The MTO families surveyed by phone were
found to be representative of the larger group of MTO families, but the
Section 8 families in the phone survey had greater feelings of well-being
along several measures, as compared to all participating Section 8
families. The authors note that this may have understated the difference
in well-being between the Experimental group and the Section 8 group.

RESULTS

Changes in Objective
Neighborhood Conditions: The average destination tracts for both the
Experimental group and the Section 8 group offered improved neighborhood
environments relative to the origin tracts, based on 1990 census tract
data. However, the Experimental group enjoyed greater gains as measured by
the proportion of their new neighbors who are college graduates, employed
in high-status occupations, and earning incomes instead of receiving
public assistance. The authors infer from this that the MTO families were,
on average, able to relocate to neighborhoods with greater levels of
social organization (see Elliot et al. 1996, Sampson 1997).

Changes in Subjective
Neighborhood Conditions: Both treatment groups reported great reductions
in social and physical disorder in their new versus old neighborhoods, as
well as less public incivility, widespread idleness, and violence and
crime. Not surprisingly, families in both groups reported greater feelings
of safety and security in their new neighborhoods. The improvements
reported by the MTO families, however, surpassed those reported by the
Section 8 group. Mothers in the MTO group reported far fewer problems with
indicators of social disorder such as trash, graffiti, public drinking,
drugs, and abandoned buildings. The same pattern of improvements (i.e.
with the MTO families reporting more positively) applies opportunities and
risks facing teens as perceived by heads of household. With regard to
crime and feelings of security (a major factors motivating moves from
public housing), both treatment groups reported
very large improvements of generally similar magnitudes. The same is true
of improved access to services, though fewer MTO mothers reported easy
access to trains and buses in comparison with the Section 8 group.

The authors suggest that
the fact that some Section 8 families moved to neighborhoods that were
similar to those to which the average Experimental group family moved,
while others moved to neighborhoods that were virtually indistinguishable
from those they left behind suggests the potential benefit that could be
gained when housing assistance is coupled with added services, such as
search assistance.

The declining conditions of many urban public housing developments are
well-documented, and have prompted heated debates about strategies for deconcentrating urban poverty. Federal housing assistance
has shifted away from the development and preservation of public housing
developments, and most recent initiatives include vouchers to enable households
to have a choice in the type and location of their housing. Thus, it is
essential to understand if, and how, vouchers can improve the life chances of
poor families.

We use survey data from the Moving to Opportunity demonstration program in Chicago to explore changes
for households moving from public housing. We focus on two Chicago to explore changes for households
moving from public housing. We focus on two key areas: (1) housing and
neighborhood conditions, and (2) labor force participation of respondents. The
experimental design of the MTO program allows us to examine differences between
households moving with a regular Section 8 voucher and those households moving
to low-poverty neighborhoods with housing counseling assistance. Our findings
are based on interviews with families an average of
one and a half years after their initial move, and reveal dramatic improvements
that families on from both program groups experience when they move -- the
experimental group who move to low-poverty neighborhoods experience even
greater gains in terms of housing and especially neighborhood conditions.
Employment increased for both program groups, likely fueled by the robust
economy throughout much of the country, supporting similar findings for MTO
program participants in New York and Boston.

QUESTIONS

To what degree does
participation in the MTO program change families’ experience of
well-being, as measured by housing and neighborhood conditions, and
employment levels?

How do families’ experiences
differ depending on program group assignment (i.e. Section 8 group vs.
Experimental group)?

The US Department of
Housing and Urban Development baseline survey completed by all
participants in the MTO program prior to any move.

A telephone survey
conducted by mover families in Chicago
an average of 13 months after the families moved and 24.6 months after the
baseline survey. Difficulty securing phone numbers led to a low response
rate (51.3%). Of 285 households to lease up in Chicago, phone numbers were available
for 234. 120 program participants were contacted and surveyed. Of
these, 67 were in the MTO group, and 53 were in the Section 8 group.
Two-tailed tests were conducted to determine whether phone survey sample
were statistically different than the population of households in the
program, using the baseline data. The MTO families surveyed by phone were
found to be representative of the larger group of MTO families, but the
Section 8 families in the phone survey had greater feelings of well-being
along several measures, as compared to all participating Section 8
families. The authors note that this may have understated the difference
in neighborhood conditions between the Experimental group and the Section
8 group.

RESULTS

Both the Section 8 group
and the Experimental group indicated higher rates of satisfaction in their
new neighborhoods (from less than one-in-ten satisfied, to a majority in
both groups). The differences in the improvements for each group were not
statistically significant.

Data on housing and
neighborhood conditions suggest that the MTO has succeeded in improving
the experiences of these aspects of well-being for both groups of mover
families. With regards to neighborhood conditions, the gains of the
Experimental group significantly exceeded those of the Section 8 group,
suggesting an extra benefit of the additional services provided to
Experimental group members and/or the program requirement of moving to
low-poverty neighborhoods.

Respondents from both
treatment groups were much more likely to be participating in the labor
force after their moves. It should be noted that the baseline data on
these groups provides the comparison, rather than a control group that
remained in public housing. Hence, it is difficult to distinguish the
impact of program participation from the general improvements in the
economy that occurred over the time period in question. Differences in the
gains of the two treatment groups were not statistically significant.

MTO families were far more
likely than Section 8 families to meet or surpass their preferences for
suburban and racially mixed locations. The authors note that this finding
illustrates that when assisted households are provided with supplemental services
to broaden their housing choices, they are better able to make moves to
improved environment and to overcome any racial or other barriers to
housing that may exist. However, the relative impact of the additional
services (as opposed to the program requirement of having Experimental
group families move to low poverty neighborhoods) is not clear.